Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary

I did it again , to me sound is freq , like it could me light for someone else .

The way a learned it was trough music , and yes its a good thing our ears aren't that good .

Like the light spectrum is divided by colors (if like music 12) coming from its root color 1 , the music scale is the same divided in 12 notes coming from one root note.


It's the system of life ,from seemingly random number/freq/vibration/sounds create melodies . And more important recognizable patterns out of nothing.

Mark

Hi Mark - nice to see we're on line at the same time.  Must be 'European' and must be your early morning.  I always get here at 'wake up' and then buzz out on the forum.

Yes.  I absolutely agree.  At a very profound level there's a geometry - a pattern - or a whole series of patterns that all speak way more eloquently than language or even mathematics.  And I think you're very in tune - as I've said.  It shows up in your extraordinary designs of your coils. 

Interestingly, Bell (mathematician) proved that if the 'structure' of everything was not symmetrical - then we would have absolute chaos everywhere.  Not those words - but that was his sense.  And I agree.  We all share this understanding on a very, very, very deep level.  I think even insects respond to it.  I ABSOLUTELY agree with you.  It's just that I personally think that this pattern is first presented to us in a magnetic field.  And again, as a purely subjective observation - I don't need to go much further than a binary system which is best evident in a magnetic field.  Somehow most of what I write is entirely incomprehensible.  And it's rather lonely - looking at this without being able to persuade others to share the view, so to speak.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

[Mk1]

@Rosemary

We all share about the same views , but can't agree on the words .

Of course its binary other wise it would not vibrate .

I go to bed really really late ...

Most of the arguing in the world is language based .

Mark

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary

We all share about the same views , but can't agree on the words .

Of course its binary other wise it would not vibrate .

I go to bed really really late ...

Most of the arguing in the world is language based .

Mark

We're definitely on the same page here Mark - if not on the same time line.  LOL.  Just on a personal note - I often think that the kind of work you do is also a kind of vocation - like a mission.  I think what I'm trying to say is that you're somehow 'driven'.  Certainly that's what I see in your design reach.  It's extraordinary.  I'm rather expecting much more to follow.  Very intriguing.

But I think we're both drifting off topic.

Again - all the best. 
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Paul, Hope you're still here.  I saw Art's comment regarding dark energy which may be the aether as proposed.  Here's my question.  Let's assume that there's a field of particles that belong to a permanent magnet - and that these particles literally form up in into those 'lines of force' that Faraday proposed.  In other words - the fields themselves belong to the structure of the magnet but they do not belong to the atoms in that structure. 

Leaving alone the actual arrangement of those proposed bipolar particles - which admittedly are only 'speculated' here - the question then is - why do we not see them?  And what I propose is this.  We depend on light to expose the existence of any particles.  Effectively light would need to bounce off a particle to determine it's existence at all.  If such a particle existed it would need to be too small and too fast for light to ever find it.  And in theory this particle has already been proposed - in a tachyon.  Therefore?  Surely?  Our 'field' may comprise tachyons that exceed light speed and therefore remain 'dark'.  Just possibly?

Anyway.  That's the question that I'm throwing out there.  I sort of get it that neither of you are actually that keen on getting into a discussion of fields.  It's a branch of theory that is very seldom referenced.  But my own take here is that its properties can be very readily deduced from even a superficial study of a magnetic field.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[pauldude000]

Hi Paul, Hope you're still here.  I saw Art's comment regarding dark energy which may be the aether as proposed.  Here's my question.  Let's assume that there's a field of particles that belong to a permanent magnet - and that these particles literally form up in into those 'lines of force' that Faraday proposed.  In other words - the fields themselves belong to the structure of the magnet but they do not belong to the atoms in that structure. 

Leaving alone the actual arrangement of those proposed bipolar particles - which admittedly are only 'speculated' here - the question then is - why do we not see them?  And what I propose is this.  We depend on light to expose the existence of any particles.  Effectively light would need to bounce off a particle to determine it's existence at all.  If such a particle existed it would need to be too small and too fast for light to ever find it.  And in theory this particle has already been proposed - in a tachyon.  Therefore?  Surely?  Our 'field' may comprise tachyons that exceed light speed and therefore remain 'dark'.  Just possibly?

Anyway.  That's the question that I'm throwing out there.  I sort of get it that neither of you are actually that keen on getting into a discussion of fields.  It's a branch of theory that is very seldom referenced.  But my own take here is that its properties can be very readily deduced from even a superficial study of a magnetic field.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Let us put this into perspective. There exists a small particle/packet we call an electron which from the manner in which it be4haves leads us to believe it is particulate matter. However, this object is SO small it has never been seen, nor CAN it be examined with the instruments we have now. The electron microscope is the device we currently use to view extremely tiny particles, yet it's greatest resolution, which is unattainable is only one electron wide.

A photon is much larger in "size" than an electron.

When you examine particulate theory, much of the "hard data" we have is extrapolated, NONE is from first hand witness. This problem leaves the entire area rife with speculation. Much of what is put forth as fact, truthfully only qualifies as either assertion or hypothesis, as secondhand data is not really "hard evidence" by definition.

As for fields? Depends upon whom you ask. A relativist would equate them with a type of warped space/time. An Aetherist would equate them with flows of the basic aetheric particles. Personally, I couldn't care less which view a person holds, as they are logically the same thing, just some of the effects differ.

In this case, as a for instance, the former view has the substance making up what we call "space" bending, the other states space flows, but both refer to a substance which has characteristics combinative of both energy and matter.  It can "bend", or "move", develop "holes" or "bubbles". Characteristics of matter. Yet both are stated to be energy at the source from which particles are derived.

You then have the classic notion of the Aether, and it's new face lift of space-time. You can take a corvette, change the paint, dashboard, and some of the suspension, yet it is STILL a corvette, and in fact is still the same car.

You might say concerning these two views of thought that although neither side claims the other, close examination of the car shows the serial numbers match. :-)

In science, you can now call me a heretic of the first order, the type nobody is happy with. 

Now, I am sorry I have not responded sooner, and have not posted. Life has dealt me somewhat of a punch to the solar plexus.

My strep infection in my foot..... is not strep. The initial diagnoses was wrong, and I was notified Friday it is in fact MRSA.

Yay!   

Paul Andrulis